Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Monday, allowed the petition of OMA Salam, former Chairman of the now-banned Popular Front of India (PFI), seeking custody parole. The bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja, after considering the submissions, granted OMA Salam custody parole for three days, limited to six hours each day. The court directed that Salam must bear the expenses of his journey and those of the accompanying security personnel.

During the hearing, the advocate representing the National Investigation Agency (NIA) submitted that no function had been ongoing since April 15, 2025. The court, however, clarified that the presence or absence of a function or ritual was not a relevant consideration. The court stated that if the accused wished to perform a ritual, they must be permitted to do so.

The NIA’s advocate further informed the court that the ritual in question was optional under Islamic practices and not compulsory. He emphasized that, according to the Delhi Prison Rules, the maximum custody parole granted to an undertrial could not exceed six hours, excluding travel time. He also pointed out that OMA Salam had previously sought interim and regular bail, which had been dismissed through a reasoned order by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.

The NIA opposed the grant of extended parole, arguing that Salam held an important position within the PFI and granting him parole would cause a tremendous strain on State resources. The advocate stated that Salam was a highly influential figure, unlike a co-accused who had earlier been granted parole. Additionally, it was submitted that Salam’s activities, including efforts to implement Sharia law across the country, had attracted judicial scrutiny, leading to suo motu action by the Kerala High Court.

In response, Salam’s counsel offered an undertaking that Salam would remain at home, pray at the grave, or spend time only with family members during the parole period, without making any external communications. They requested custody parole for five days, arguing that even during the day, security officers continuously shadowed him.

Background: 

The government officially banned the PFI and several of its affiliated organizations on September 28, 2022, for a period of five years under the UAPA, citing their alleged connections with global terrorist groups like ISIS.

Salam had also sought to prevent the NIA from submitting a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. His counsel argued that the NIA should only investigate scheduled offenses under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 and that there is a mandatory requirement for permission from the Central Government before such investigations. They further contended that the Delhi Police should have conducted the initial registration of the offense.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee agreed to the joint request from both parties to list the matter for hearing on October 31. Previously, in February, Justice Jasmeet Singh had issued a notice to the NIA, acknowledging that the State of Delhi should have registered the offense.

The Delhi High Court, in August 2024, denied interim bail to Salam, stating that no grounds were established to justify the grant of interim bail. 

For Petitioner: Advocate Abdul Shukoor Mundambra
For NIA: Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi
Case Title: OMA SALAM VS NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (CRL.M.C.-2614/2025